Quote:
Originally posted by blue58
Legal rights, yes. Marriage...sorry but marriage is between a man and woman, get your own word.
|
Marriage is also between two halves of a woodworking joint. Words have multiple definitions, and definitions change. There are already two definitions of marriage being used: civil and religious marriage.
Quote:
Originally posted by blue58
It's special treatment because they want to redefine (and in my OPINION make a mockery of) what many consider SACRED, simply to satisfy their OWN agenda.
|
Only RELIGIOUS marriage is 'sacred' to anybody. Civil marriage already exists, independent of any religion. Civil authorities recognise marriages performed by recognised religious authorities, but religious participation is not required for the civil marriage to be performed.
The only issue up for debate here is CIVIL marriages for gays. Nobody is trying to get the government to force any religion to perform the marriages. A church can, if it wants, refuse to marry anybody for any reason, and always will be able to. However, if a church DOES perform a gay marriage, the government should recognise it.
Quote:
Originally posted by blue58
The whole PC thing I guess is what really pisses me off, you're not allowed to have an opinion anymore, or set standards for your organization (think Boy Scouts) for fear of offending someone somewhere..
|
I'm no fan of PC, either. As a nonreligious pro-gay former Boy Scout myself, I think their policies are idiotic, but the government should not be involved. Just as churches should not be forced to perform marriages they find sinful. But remember: the US Government is not a private organization. An inequity performed by the government is not protected freedom. Correcting it is not 'PC'. It is just C.
Quote:
Originally posted by blue58
Special treatment is asking that the laws & traditions which clearly define marriage as being of a man and a woman be rewritten for their benefit.
That said, I believe they SHOULD be able to have some kind of service/union and gain the legal benefits that come with it for the one they love.
|
If the laws are rewritten for their benefit, what is the problem? They are not being rewritten to ANYBODY's detriment. No matter how yucky they may find it, a gay marriage does not hurt a heterosexual. There is no special treatment here - the new rule will be just as available to heterosexuals as heterosexual marrage has been available to gays. We should always take every opportunity to write laws that benefit some and harm none.
Quote:
Originally posted by april
In the bible homosexuality is a sin. So no it should not be allowed.
Yes I know adultary is to. So shut up!
|
So is being non-Christian. Neither fact is relevant to lawmaking.